In Stadium Building, It's Look Out For No. 1

Reinsdorf, Wirtz Guard What's Theirs

May 18, 1997|By John Kass, Tribune Political Writer. Tribune staff writer Bill Barnhart and pro football writer Don Pierson contributed to this article.

For those who wonder if Jerry Reinsdorf and Bill Wirtz are serious about building an open-air stadium in which the Bears could play, or if they're merely blowing smoke to protect their business at the United Center, there are two things to consider:

Reinsdorf and Wirtz don't joke about money. And they never joke about money.

Two of the city's shrewdest negotiators, they have changed the shape of the stadium debate by proposing a privately financed venue.

What once was thought to require $500 million in mostly public money, the Bulls' and Blackhawks' owners are now saying, could be done with half that much--and relatively little of it from taxpayers.

And so politicians, taxpayers and others are faced with questions:

Should the public, through taxes, subsidize the lion's share of a domed football stadium for the Bears that will be shaped and controlled by Gov. Jim Edgar and costs at least $500 million, not including at least $13 million a year in operating expenses and added millions in debt service?

Or should there be an open-air stadium at half that cost for football and soccer played on grass, with operating costs of $3 million a year, all paid for and run by the men who control the Blackhawks, Bulls and White Sox and their presumed tenant, the Bears?

The answer may seem obvious to most fans, but it is not clear whether either one is likely to come true.

Those who remember the White Sox stadium battles of the late 1980s know that everything is negotiable and nothing is ever truly dead as long as it's attached to a multimillion-dollar revenue stream.

For the past 25 years, football stadium plans in Chicago have been as substantive as air sandwiches. They involve failed stadium boomlets from Aurora to Gary, and frosty invitations by City Hall that Bears President Michael McCaskey move his team to Alaska.

Absent hard evidence, this newest proposal still looks just as shaky as all the others. Edgar on Friday threw more cold water on the plan, saying the state would not offer up free land to Reinsdorf and Wirtz--as their idea calls for.

For politicians, particularly Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley and Edgar, stadium talks have been a turf war.

It's been a scrap over influence and contracts and union support and the luxurious boodle attached to big public works projects. Football fans yawn, meanwhile, while McCaskey grows anxious and other players try to trim the stadium tree with casino gambling and other grand plans.

Given the wispy nature of stadium politics in Illinois, however, perhaps there is a case to be made to at least consider the new debate. Remember, Reinsdorf and Wirtz don't joke about money.

While some experts in sports business said an open-air football stadium built with private money could turn a profit in Chicago, others are more skeptical. Such venues have been rare over the past two decades, largely because they are so expensive to build and because they cannot accommodate enough non-football events to make money.

Still, the Carolina Panthers recently began playing at such a stadium in Charlotte. The Washington Redskins will move into one this fall.

"What Wirtz and Reinsdorf have done is, they've opened up the discussion," said Marc Ganis, whose Sportscorp Ltd. in Chicago has worked two successful NFL stadium deals, moving the Rams to St. Louis from Los Angeles and moving the Raiders back to Oakland from Los Angeles.

"They've put something on the table," Ganis said. "Can they do it? Sure, if it's properly designed. Will it be done? In Chicago, that's ultimately a political question, isn't it?"

Before taxpayers accuse Wirtz and Reinsdorf of playing the altruists, promising to provide the greater good, remember that they also want to protect business at the United Center. The privately funded arena they own currently is the venue of choice for indoor events.

Derailing McDome, Edgar's plan for an enclosed football stadium, would protect profits on non-sports extras at the West Side arena--ice shows, rock concerts and circuses that might move to the lakefront if a dome were available.

But United Center sources say Wirtz, who owns the Blackhawks, and Reinsdorf, chairman of the Bulls and White Sox, genuinely are convinced they could build an outdoor stadium and still give the Bears the same revenues Edgar would offer from a domed facility.

"We're not happy about a dome," acknowledged one source advocating the deal. "But also, why not consider a stadium at half the cost? We could give the Bears the same revenue deal. We know we can."

Under Edgar's dome plan, the Bears were asked to offer $175 million upfront. Revenues from skyboxes and other sources, including personal seat licenses that can sell for up to several thousand dollars apiece, would have to reach at least $35 million a year to make McCaskey happy with such a deal.